Forcing an individual to help themselves

Bill,

You asked:

All major religions do hold that one has an altruistic obligation to help those in need - to sacrifice one's interests for the sake of others. Were you thinking that Objectivism would do well to add this kind of moral imperative to its code of ethics?

I already answered this, but, for you, I will be glad to do so again. (You do realize that by asking me these things, you invite the hecklers once more - and by their appearance, the world sees a steady stream of irrational behavior on this issue from so-called Objectivists.) Anyway, here's your answer:

I don't think the question as phrased is as simple as you put it. I'm still thinking and studying. Here's the rest my previous answer from this post on this thread (in case you forgot). That post was addressed to you.

I'll definitely let you know (if you're interested) when I finish mulling this over. The only thing I can say 100% sure is that I oppose appeasement with evil, altruism as a philosophical ideal and slavery. I support independent thinking, I place supreme value on reason and I admire achievers. I consider all the bickering as BS and nothing more.

That's my honest best right now. (And no, I will not give up Objectivism simply because a doubt arose about the nature of someone's rights, I don't care what any busybody indirectly claims about owning Objectivism and being able to set the terms.)

The quote from me you posted was not about ethics, anyway. It was in answer to the insinuation I have read in several places that the problem I am studying is irrelevant - that it would not exist among Objectivists (presumably because they are too benevolent to let it exist). The assertion is usually made in the following manner: "I don't know of any Objectivist who would... (fill in the blank)." I merely pointed out that "Objectivist" in that context is completely interchangeable with "Christian," "Muslim," etc.

Then I provided the Google hits. As anyone can easily see for themselves, there have been many parents who actually did starve their children to death and this is documented. So I ask, "If parents would watch their own child starve to death, why wouldn't a stranger?" Thus, I find that the assertion that Objectivists wouldn't do that (presumably because of benevolence) to be refuted by some pretty hard evidence, if they are members of the human race. I admit, I would have to dig to find an "Objectivist" who did that, but I don't have a lot of time to research this.

(I also haven't researched Objectivists involved in heinous crimes, but I remember one case I accidently came across a few years ago of a famous murder in California where a guy blew out the brains of his beautiful young wife for insurance money, if I remember correctly, and he was an Objectivist. I sometimes read books about true crime and a book was written about this case. The detail about him being a follower of Rand's ideas was thrown in, but not emphasized.)

So I'll just include "Objectivists" as members of humanity for now.

From my observation of online behavior over the last year, I believe that adopting Objectivism does not change the basic temperament of a person. If he is an empathetic and kind person, he appears to have been so before adopting the philosophy. If he is belligerent and loudmouthed, ditto. From what I have seen, even if he is irrational (like prone to suddenly erupting in violent rages and saying all kinds of irrational things), I would say he was that way previously.

I hope this makes my quote you used clearer.

Also, for the record, it is not my intention for lil ole me to single-handedly "eviscerate the Objectivist code of ethics." You flatter me with that one.

Michael

Post 181

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 4:04am

There is an implication in MSK's last post that the so-called "hecklers" of his posts are not independant thinkers and that they are mearly dogmatically refusing to deal with his arguemnts. As one of these hecklers, I wish to make it clear that this is grossly deceptive and unjust on the part of MSK (deja vu.) His dishonest, hyperbolic, context dropping, context switching, and generally bad-faith posts on these topics are the reason he is being "heckled." His attempts to play the innocent independant thinker just looking to figure things out is crap in my opinion. I encourage those interested in the truth of his tactics to read the Alruism Against Freedom thread, as well as this thread completely.

My heckling of MSK is not because I have no answer for his arguments, they've been dealt with elsewhere. I heckle MSK becasue that's all that his previous actions warrant. Others are free to engage MSK, but for my part, I'll continue to point out his dishonesty until he either comes clean and apologises or leaves the RoR forum. His paltry return attacks that I shold be better than that are attempts to divert the occasional reader into thinking that I'm the one who is dishonest and nasty. This is a typical smoke-screen tactic that he often employs to evade those who are well aware of his crap.

Post 182

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:29am

Bill,

If you look at Ethan's post right above mine here, you have a perfect example of what I meant by hecklers. I don't find this kind of thing productive or rational. It is certainly not in the spirit of Objectivism and it produces the exact opposite effect he tries to produce.

Here are a couple of Rand quotes about what he is doing. The Ayn Rand Letter, November 6, 1972, "A Nation's Unity - Part III":

(A smear is an accusation without particulars or proof�such as the claim that the Nixon Administration is "the most corrupt in our history.")

The Journals of Ayn Rand, p. 456, entry of April 26, 1946:

To discredit an idea, one must discredit the speaker or his motives (the smear technique).

Is prompting people who like to do this what you are after in your questions to me? Because this is the practical result.

Michael

Post 183

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 5:56am

Bill says to Michael:

You are right about one thing, though: All major religions do hold that one has an altruistic obligation to help those in need - to sacrifice one's interests for the sake of others. Were you thinking that Objectivism would do well to add this kind of moral imperative to its code of ethics? Of course, you realize that to do so would all but eviscerate the Objectivist ethics.

I think he does realize this, Bill, but doesn't care. Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water! : )

Speaking of the Objectivist Ethics; I've started reading Tara Smith's new book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. Whereas Viable Values was about meta-ethics, her new book is about the practice of ethics. As she puts it:

Here, I turn from the questions of what it is to be moral and why such prescriptions are necessary to how to be moral. [Emphasis in the original.]

Of course, Smith is an 'academic philosopher', so I can't expect too much.: ) But, I'm optimistic. I have high hopes for this book.
Thanks,
Glenn

Post 184

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 7:27am

Then I provided the Google hits. As anyone can easily see for themselves, there have been many parents who actually did starve their children to death and this is documented.

That was either 1.2 million plus hits, or 1.7 plus, but what those numbers don't say is how many of those hits refer simply to basic information regarding neglect, or how many refer to the very same story of neglect, or how many are truly unique reports of starvation through neglect. I suspect that a huge percentage of those hits represent one or both of the former.

I Googled -adoption of children- and got 64,800,000 hits. Does that somehow suggest that every single one of those hits represents the unique adoption of one child?

By MSK's crunching of the evidence, it does.

Post 185

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 9:55am

Glenn wrote,

Speaking of the Objectivist Ethics; I've started reading Tara Smith's new book, Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics. Whereas Viable Values was about meta-ethics, her new book is about the practice of ethics. As she puts it:
Here, I turn from the questions of what it is to be moral and why such prescriptions are necessary to how to be moral. [Emphasis in the original.]
Of course, Smith is an 'academic philosopher', so I can't expect too much.: ) But, I'm optimistic. I have high hopes for this book.

You should. I read part of a paper she wrote on honesty awhile back, and it was superb. So, expect to be impressed! And thanks for reminding me: I need to get both those books for my library.

- Bill

Post 186

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 11:06am

Yeah - but $80 is kind of steep at the moment.....

Post 187

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 2:39pm

Sorry, you lost me at initiating force, unchosen obligations, and conditional "rights".

---Landon

Post 188

Friday, April 14, 2006 - 2:49pm

Landon,

That's easy.

Initiating force - Spank on the bottom at birth, then general punishment as you grow up.
Unchosen obligations - Obeying the rules and orders of parents you did not choose, regardless of their irrationality.
Conditional "rights" - Having all your rights, especially your right to life, conditional to the actions of unchosen adults (your parents).

Oh...

Sorry.

You were talking about adults, right?

Michael

Post 189

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 1:20am

Yeah - but $80 is kind of steep at the moment.....

Right. I didn't think it would be that much, but this is evidently a scholarly book, and they tend to run on the high side. The reasoning, I would imagine, is that there is a limited market with a relatively inelastic demand for the product. So, the publisher makes the most money by charging a higher price. If he were to lower it, he wouldn't attract enough new customers to compensate for the drop in marginal profit from the sale of each new book. If there were more of a mass market, as there is for Rand's books, then the demand would be more elastic, more responsive to a change in price, and the seller might gain proportionally more customers from lowering the price than he would lose in marginal profit, so that his total profit would increase.

Conversely, if the publisher were to raise the price of Rand's books, say, he would probably lose proportionally more customers than he would gain in marginal profit, so that his total profit would be less. To be sure, hardcore Objectivists would continue to buy the books at the higher price, but the less avid fans would drop out of the market. Tara Smith doesn't (yet) have a fan base beyond hardcore Objectivists. Many, if not most, of Rand's readers haven't even heard of her.

Henry Ford made the right decision when he lowered the price of his Model T, because the elasticity of demand - the responsiveness to the drop in price in percentage terms - was greater than the loss in marginal profit from the sale of each new automobile. So, he got rich. Knowing the price elasticity of demand for your product is the key to being successful in business. It can mean the difference between success and failure.

- Bill

Post 190

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 5:14am

Well, much as I'd love to read it now, think will wait till Laissez-faire Books carries it, or get used copy from Amazon...... while am not starving, this artist hasn't yet sold enough to live off of the efforts.....

Post 191

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 8:25pm

Michael replied to Landon on the meaning of "initiating force," "unchosen obligations," and "conditional rights":

Landon,

That's easy.

Initiating force - Spank on the bottom at birth, then general punishment as you grow up.

This is not "initiating force" in the sense that Objectivism means it, which is to violate someone's rights by forcing the person to act against his or her judgment. For a baby, who doesn't have the understanding to grant or withhold consent, there is no forcing him to act against his judgment. The standard for the appropriate treatment of a baby has to be the baby's welfare, which is not violated by spanking him on the bottom at birth! Nor is it violated by appropriate punishment in response to unruly behavior.

Unchosen obligations - Obeying the rules and orders of parents you did not choose, regardless of their irrationality.

No child has an obligation to obey the rules and orders of parents, regardless of their irrationality. He has an obligation to obey the parents in exchange for their guidance and support, only if their rules are reasonable. Is this an unchosen obligation? Not if the child is in no position to choose an alternative set of parents. An obligation cannot be considered unchosen, if the child is incapable of making an informed choice, which he isn't until he acquires the requisite knowledge and maturity to do so.

Moreover, if the biological parents are to invest the time, energy and resources required to prepare their child for adulthood, then they must retain some control over his behavior. If the parents have an obligation to invest in his future, which they do if they are to raise him properly, then the child has a corollary obligation to remain with them during his formative years, provided they are not neglecting or abusing him. This is not an "unchosen obligation" that is imposed on an independent person against his will, which is the sense in which Rand was using the term. For instance, in her essay, "Man's Rights" in The Virtue of Selfishness, she states: "No man can have a right to impose an unchosen obligation, an unrewarded duty or an involuntary servitude on another man. There can be no such thing as 'the right to enslave'." (p. 96) Clearly, the child is not being enslaved by the parents. He is not, in that sense, the victim of an "unchosen obligation."

Conditional "rights" - Having all your rights, especially your right to life, conditional to the actions of unchosen adults (your parents).

The child's right to be supported by the parents is not conditional on their actions. He has a right to be supported by them, regardless of their actions - regardless of whether or not they meet their parental obligations. Even if they fail to give him the support that he deserves, he still retains his right to that support.

If I am robbed by a burglar, I still retain the right to my property. My property rights are not conditional upon his actions, such that if he chooses to rob me, he deprives of the right to my property. He deprives me of my property, not my right to it.

In short, children are not typically the victims of the "initiation of force" or of "unchosen obligations" in the Objectivist sense of these terms. Nor is their right to parental support dependent on the parents' actions, any more than the right to my property is dependent on the actions of a burglar who chooses to steal it. The only thing that is dependent on the actions of others in this context is a respect for these rights.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 4/15, 8:29pm)

Post 192

Saturday, April 15, 2006 - 9:17pm

I think Bill Dwyer's post #191 responding to issues raised by MSK in post #188 clearly demonstrate why this thread (and the one that spawned it) can not be resolved. There is very little understanding and agreement on such basic concepts as force, obligations and rights. Michael's clear statement of these issues certainly help explain where he is coming from and why he maintains the positions he does. Nevertheless, despite all the rhetoric on these topics over the past two months or so, I cannot see any convergence in understanding. Given the ratio of effort to results, it seems like a useless exercise to me.

By the way Bill, I agree with your explanations. Thanks for your efforts.
--
Jeff

Post 193

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 7:04am

"No child has an obligation to obey the rules and orders of parents, regardless of their irrationality. He has an obligation to obey the parents in exchange for their guidance and support, only if their rules are reasonable."

If one party is unhappy with the terms of an exchange, they are free to leave; it's my understanding from the abandonment, etc. discussions here that you'd say this also applies to children. So if it's an exchange - one of obedience for guidance and support (food, shelter, education, etc.) - then how can there be an extra clause 'only if their rules are reasonable'?

Post 194

Sunday, April 16, 2006 - 2:39pm